No, this isn’t about politicians’ involvement in prostitution. It’s about something that struck me about this press release I just got from Jim Clyburn:
March 12, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASECLYBURN: WHAT DO REPUBLICANS HAVE AGAINST VOLUNTEERISM?
WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn today released the following statement criticizing House Republicans for defeating the GIVE Act, HR 5563, legislation that promotes volunteerism and reauthorizes national service programs.
“What demonstrates true American values more than volunteering? What better way to give back to our country and community than engage in service work? When our cities and our towns are in crisis, how do we rebuild them and get our neighbors back on their feet? With volunteers—people giving their time, their care, their resources to make our neighborhoods and our nation a better place. I am truly confounded as to why my colleagues would divide on partisan lines and defeat a bill that strengthens and provides for our national service organizations.
“This bill was approved unanimously by the Education and Labor Committee 44 to 0. It authorizes extremely successful and effective organizations such as AmeriCorps, VISTA, Retired and Senior Volunteer Program, Foster Grandparent Program, and Senior Companion Program. It also creates a new service-learning program called Summer of Service, which engages youth in service through summer volunteer opportunities.
“What do my Republican colleagues have against volunteerism?”-30-
Rep. Clyburn has been a party leader too long. He seems to think he’s backed his opponents into a rhetorical corner, when the answer to his question is obvious to anyone but a guy who talks too much to members of his own party: Republicans have nothing against volunteerism. Some of them just don’t like paying for it. And they have a point, although a limited one. Republicans see no need for Congress to "authorize" people to volunteer in their communities; the Constitution guarantees freedom of association, etc.
Does that mean there’s something wrong with these programs Mr. Clyburn supports? No, or at least, not necessarily. There’s nothing wrong with the concept of paying for a program that employs volunteers. As the former president of our local Habitat for Humanity, I can tell you that volunteers only get you so far; you’ve got to have cash to build houses.
As for governmental volunteering, you can look at good examples from the Peace Corps to our post-draft military. I’m also familiar with cases in which paid volunteers were not terribly useful, but they got paid anyway.
My point is that in a debate such as this, both sides often have points. But too little of the rhetoric we hear acknowledges that. Note the simplistic advocacy on this blog, which includes the too-oft-repeated emotional "argument" that goes like this… "the almost $1 billion for volunteerism here is merely a drop in the
bucket compared to the $2 trillion price tag on the war in Iraq." As though the expense of the war were either an argument that we shouldn’t prosecute the war, or that we should fund the volunteer programs. Which is isn’t; nor does it demonstrate the opposite in either case.
… or this, from an extremist in the other direction, which inevitably invokes Alexis de Toqueville.
I don’t know whether, if I were a member of Congress, I would vote for this bill or not. Since it was just now brought to my attention by Rep. Clyburn, I would seek more time to decide. That, by the way, is theoretically why we delegate people to go make laws for us — to study and consider, not reflexively go one way or the other.
But I’m pretty sure that, whichever way I voted, I would not think that either a "yes" or a "no" would be absolutely, unquestionably right and true.
Related Posts
The Peace Corps and City Year are not volunteers. They are paid a salary.
We in the US do have volunteers out the wazoo: Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, other youth clubs, Salvation Army, church groups, etc. When volunteers are paid, they’re not volunteers, no?
This is a great country with a big wazoo!
Whoa! There may be T-shirt royalties in that..
I don’t think you guys get it. I was part of Americorps, more specifically, Public Allies in Silicon Valley, and I worked my butt off serving communities that needed help. I worked 50-60 hours a week alone getting paid just about minimum wage. Yes, I got PAID, . But while in these programs, people devote their entire days “volunteering”. It’s called the need to survive, like maybe eating, for example. These people that the GIVE Act would help work with the youth, the elderly, the poor, the starving. They work in schools, housing development programs, domestic violence shelters, etc. They provide non profit organizations the extra hands they need to keep running, at a fraction of the price.
Another thing is that the age range of the people who are in the Girls Scouts, Boy Scouts, other youth clubs, Salvation Army, and church groups are mostly either youth (as in 18 and under, still going to school and have the time and probably financial backing, to volunteer) and the elderly. The GIVE Act WOULD have helped fund all of those positions in those organizations and promoted “volunteerism” within the 18-30 age group.
Tell me, how many times do you, AND everyone else you know go and volunteer at elderly homes, homeless shelters, community centers, etc.? How many times do you help put on events that would benefit your community? Or do you just not have time?